ensp_apply_experiment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that system-view is entered automatically before sending, that auto_save triggers a save pass, that it delegates to ensp_send_commands, and that it returns a structured report plus Markdown. It stops short of describing failure/partial-failure behavior, permission needs, or reversibility of the applied config, which matters for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled parameter and workflow sections. Every line adds information the agent needs (parameter shapes, step ordering, return format) with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter orchestrator with nested objects and an output schema, the description supplies the parameter shapes, the execution sequence, sibling delegation, and side effects (system-view, save). Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value detail is appropriate; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: plan is shown with concrete shape and example commands, verify_targets is documented with its element structure and the kind enum values (ospf|vlan|routes|interfaces|ping), and auto_save is explained as save-after-deploy. All three parameters gain meaning absent from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: a one-stop pipeline that sends per-device command sequences, verifies, and reports. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ensp_send_commands and ensp_save_config by positioning itself as the orchestrator that calls them. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the tool family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The numbered workflow makes the intended usage context concrete: this is the tool to reach for when you want the whole deploy+verify+save flow rather than individual steps. It names the delegation to ensp_send_commands, guiding the agent away from manually looping that tool. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over a sibling like ensp_smart_config, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.